Police Cannot Register FIR And Conduct Investigation For PC-PNDT Act Offences : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that police cannot register FIR and act as the main investigating authority for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act). The Court held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act is responsible for investigating complaints, while police can at most play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh pronounced judgment in a case concerning the scope of police powers to register FIRs and investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act).

The Court also held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation. 

The case arises from an Allahabad High Court judgment dated September 30, 2024, which had referred three questions to be decided by the Supreme Court. The questions arise from the interplay between Section 27 and Section 28 of the Act.

Section 27 declares every offence under the Act to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 28, however, provides that no court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given at least 15 days' notice to the Appropriate Authority of the alleged offence and of the intention to make a complaint.

The issue involved in the present case was whether the declaration of offences as cognizable under Section 27 independently permits registration and investigation of FIRs by the police, or whether the special procedure under Section 28 limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to the mechanism prescribed under the Act. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta along with Advocate-on-Record Nitin Saluja assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae in examining the issue.

The Supreme Court answered the three questions as follows -

(A) Whether, for the offences under the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR at the Police Station is permissible, merely because the offences under the PC & PNDT Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable?

Answer - The Supreme Court held that the language of Sections 27 and 28, read with the other provisions of the Act and keeping in mind its socially beneficial nature and the sensitivity and medical and technical know-how involved, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for offences under the Act.

The Court noted that an FIR registered by the police cannot be taken to its logical conclusion under the procedure prescribed by the Act. The restriction, however, applies only to offences under the PC & PNDT Act and does not prevent the police from investigating and prosecuting independent offences under general criminal law, the Court clarified.

(B) Whether the Police investigation is permissible for the offences under the PC & PNDT Act? AND Who can investigate the complaints, received for violation of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act?

Answer - The Supreme Court noted that Section 17(4) of the Act makes investigation of complaints a responsibility of the Appropriate Authority. The Court also referred to Rule 18A(3)(iv), which has statutory force and requires that further recourse to the police be avoided as far as possible.

The Court therefore concluded that the police cannot be the main investigative authority under the Act. At most, the police may play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(C) Whether on the charge sheet submitted after the investigation by the Police, the competent magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the PC & PNDT Act?

Answer - The Supreme Court held that Section 28 creates a complete statutory mechanism for taking cognizance, subject to the situations specifically provided under the provision. It consequently held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed pursuant to a police investigation.

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court to take a decision in the case in accordance with law. 

Appearance - 

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union of India while AOR Vishwa Pal Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 

Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta, Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Agarwal, along with Advocates Gyanendra Kumar, Sakshi Arora, Harshit Sharma, Vikalp Sharma and Meena Kora Patel, also assisted the Court. AOR Nitin Saluja assisted the Amicus Curiae.

Crl.A. No. 2938/2025 Diary No. 22340 / 2025 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs BRIJ PAL SINGH